How much have you looked into Schizophrenia thus far Turq?
How do you figure I got onto disability with nothing wrong other than some hyperactivity I literally narrated for you? 
I'm starting to think tc gets off on being degraded.
This isn't well known? Doesnt matter how true or false, he merely laughs at anything.
As far as why his thoughts carry cohesive meaning, it's likely because OCD levels of "perfect" matter to him to the point where 30min is not unusual time to "properly" edit a post.
Also his thoughts may seem "long winded" because he is naturally inclined to find the most difficult ways to explain simple concepts to feel smarter. Also has side goal to confuse target audience so he can use circular arguments to "win".
I'm starting to think tc gets off on being degraded.
This isn't well known? Doesnt matter how true or false, he merely laughs at anything.
Hey, I elaborate on why it's funny too.
As far as why his thoughts carry cohesive meaning, it's likely because OCD levels of "perfect" matter to him to the point where 30min is not unusual time to "properly" edit a post.
You're being too modest, it can last on and off for hours.
Compare my edit timestamps to my post ones sometimes, it can be pretty bad.
Also his thoughts may seem "long winded" because he us naturally inclined to find the most difficult ways to explain simple concepts to feel smarter. Also has side goal to confuse target audience so he can use circular arguments to "win".
I see our debates left some marks.
As far as why his thoughts carry cohesive meaning, it's likely because OCD levels of "perfect" matter to him to the point where 30min is not unusual time to "properly" edit a post.
You're being too modest, it can last on and off for hours.
Compare my edit timestamps to my post ones sometimes, it can be pretty bad.
This is true. I was much too modest. I'll confirm he can spend hours on the perfect post.
Also his thoughts may seem "long winded" because he us naturally inclined to find the most difficult ways to explain simple concepts to feel smarter. Also has side goal to confuse target audience so he can use circular arguments to "win".
I see our debates left some marks.
Some call them impressions. Your ability to swap out apples and oranges is uncanny. There is a degree of ego stroking paired with debate that isn't subtle either lol
As far as why his thoughts carry cohesive meaning, it's likely because OCD levels of "perfect" matter to him to the point where 30min is not unusual time to "properly" edit a post.
You're being too modest, it can last on and off for hours.
Compare my edit timestamps to my post ones sometimes, it can be pretty bad.This is true. I was much too modest. I'll confirm he can spend hours on the perfect post.
Thank you.
If something's to be done right, it needs to be clear and it ought to look guud.
Also his thoughts may seem "long winded" because he us naturally inclined to find the most difficult ways to explain simple concepts to feel smarter. Also has side goal to confuse target audience so he can use circular arguments to "win".
I see our debates left some marks.
Some call them impressions. Your ability to swap out apples and oranges is uncanny. There is a degree of ego stroking paired with debate that isn't subtle either lol
What stuff didn't I stick to? From what I can tell I stuck to my points pretty consistently barring a few brief tangents we'd go to-and-from when we look back at them even now.
My points being confusing to you doesn't make them bad points, per say, and a lot of my "long winded" typing is my trying to find other ways of phrasing similar things in hopes you'll grasp the complexity of my words.
I was more worried that I was being repetitive with you through different words than my saying too many unrelated things.
"A fool also is full of words: a man cannot tell what shall be; and what shall be after him, who can tell him?"
In the marine corps if you can't "break it down barney style" you are then a "private dumbass".
I also like to consider public speakers, and how they can give points and facts in clear simple ways that general public can understand... Jordan Peterson can probably ramble and be overly complex to lose a majority of his listeners; he is smart enough- But he makes simple points, and highlights parts that needs explained with a coupled metaphor for his audience to understand.
I'll also give you credit TC and say you have a more likely chance of making "a good point" in writing, vs with speaking off the top.
Not that either is ineffective- all the time, or ineffective none of the time.
"A fool also is full of words: a man cannot tell what shall be; and what shall be after him, who can tell him?"
In the marine corps if you can't "break it down barney style" you are then a "private dumbass".
You expect discussions about what constitutes reality to be easy to express!?
It's one of the most complicated questions! Barring moments where you're quoting shit you'd be making points of depth as well, and those didn't translate immediately they take time to think about and, frankly, were rewarding from having given it said time.
I also like to consider public speakers, and how they can give points and facts in clear simple ways that general public can understand... Jordan Peterson can probably ramble and be overly complex to lose a majority of his listeners; he is smart enough- But he makes simple points, and highlights parts that needs explained with a coupled metaphor for his audience to understand.
When I dumb it down too much you start saying it makes no sense either though, and frankly it makes sense as to why: I end up missing far too many details.
When you can only take in information in bite sized portions, the Graphic Designers and Brainwashing Advertisements win. Streamlining is how to appeal to people who don't want to think, and we shouldn't be taking such a road when we're discussing what is behind why we exist and what life's purpose is.
In this case it's not a simple answer, and simplifying it is a crime that serves to not just miss tons of important details, but also biases the message through what parts are willingly skipped over. For example, we have The Nihilist who says nothing matters versus The Existentialist who says everything does; If they weren't oversimplifying their points they'd see that they're arguing similar things.
I'll also give you credit TC and say you have a more likely chance of making "a good point" in writing, vs with speaking off the top.
I'd say it's more that the medium helps it be read without my excitement behind it, and that it being able to be read more than once instead of absorbed through sound effects and wild hand gestures is liable to make for easier translation.
"A fool also is full of words: a man cannot tell what shall be; and what shall be after him, who can tell him?"
In the marine corps if you can't "break it down barney style" you are then a "private dumbass".
You expect discussions about what constitutes reality to be easy to express!?
It's one of the most complicated questions! Barring moments where you're quoting shit you'd be making points of depth as well, and those didn't translate immediately they take time to think about and, frankly, were rewarding from having given it said time.
To reiterate on this, most of what I've found myself parroting from you from our talks were from the times you were the least streamlined.
You've taught me a lot, but not through the channels you think ought to be teaching.
"A fool also is full of words: a man cannot tell what shall be; and what shall be after him, who can tell him?"
In the marine corps if you can't "break it down barney style" you are then a "private dumbass".
You expect discussions about what constitutes reality to be easy to express!?
It's one of the most complicated questions! Barring moments where you're quoting shit you'd be making points of depth as well, and those didn't translate immediately they take time to think about and, frankly, were rewarding from having given it said time.To reiterate on this, most of what I've found myself parroting from you from our talks were from the times you were the least streamlined.
You've taught me a lot, but not through the channels you think ought to be teaching.
Our best talks would be considered "unfollowable" by any outside listeners. "Between lines"
You are probably one my favorite persons to talk to irl, also the most confusing sometimes aha.
"A fool also is full of words: a man cannot tell what shall be; and what shall be after him, who can tell him?"
In the marine corps if you can't "break it down barney style" you are then a "private dumbass".
You expect discussions about what constitutes reality to be easy to express!?
Fair point.
It's one of the most complicated questions! Barring moments where you're quoting shit you'd be making points of depth as well, and those didn't translate immediately they take time to think about and, frankly, were rewarding from having given it said time.
My structure for relaying information can be a hastily recovered dyslexic mess at best sometimes lol.
I also like to consider public speakers, and how they can give points and facts in clear simple ways that general public can understand... Jordan Peterson can probably ramble and be overly complex to lose a majority of his listeners; he is smart enough- But he makes simple points, and highlights parts that needs explained with a coupled metaphor for his audience to understand.
When I dumb it down too much you start saying it makes no sense either though, and frankly it makes sense as to why: I end up missing far too many details.
Only thing I can remark is in these *sometimes* cases is that *sometimes* you do miss too many details. Metaphors seem unconventional for you, but maybe resolve the above infrequent/semi frequent hiccup.
When you can only take in information in bite sized portions, the Graphic Designers and Brainwashing Advertisements win.
Red and yellow makes a hunger thought/feeling come up. Some bite sized bits are effective because they carry subconscious influence.
"Brainwash" is a big word that can potentially carry different meaning to different people.
Streamlining is how to appeal to people who don't want to think, and we shouldn't be taking such a road when we're discussing what is behind why we exist and what life's purpose is.
I like to think that streamlining some things is like being able to cut a branch off a bush, rather than eliminate leaves; one by one.
Idk why we exist, purpose seems self defined.
In this case it's not a simple answer, and simplifying it is a crime that serves to not just miss tons of important details, but also biases the message through what parts are willingly skipped over. For example, we have The Nihilist who says nothing matters versus The Existentialist who says everything does; If they weren't oversimplifying their points they'd see that they're arguing similar things.
New perspectives counter to above mentioned perspectives may help with bringing light to both sides.
I'll also give you credit TC and say you have a more likely chance of making "a good point" in writing, vs with speaking off the top.
I'd say it's more that the medium helps it be read without my excitement behind it, and that it being able to be read more than once instead of absorbed through sound effects and wild hand gestures is liable to make for easier translation.
😂
